One Housing Group (201911422)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911422

One Housing Group

7 January 2021 (amended 14 May 2021)


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for the period 2018 to 2019.
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and Summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a one–bedroom flat located on the first floor of the building. The resident purchased the underlease on or around 13 December 2013.
  2. The landlord is the immediate landlord.
  3. Until the end of January 2020 the landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure, under which it aimed to acknowledge complaints within two working days and respond at both stages within 10 working days.
  4. From February 2020 onward the landlord operated a single-stage formal complaints procedure. It aimed to contact the resident to discuss their concerns and agree on an outcome within three working days. If unsuccessful it would investigate and respond to the matter as a formal complaint within 15 working days. If more time is required, it will contact the resident to explain and agree a new response time. It will always provide a response within 30 calendar days unless it has previously agreed a later date. Its lead officer’s letter will make clear that this represents its ‘final decision’ and marks the end of its complaints process.
  5. Both complaints procedures state that the level and reasonableness of service charges are not covered by this policy.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for gesture of goodwill payments to be made (at the landlord’s discretion) towards: “time, trouble, distress etc”. Section 1.1 states it will consider paying compensation to its residents when, (amongst other things) it has not acted reasonably or when it has failed to meet its service targets.
  7. The resident’s complaint relates to request for a written summary of costs incurred associated with his 2018/2019 service charge in accordance with section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’). It is noted that the resident has stated within his communications with the landlord that he is unhappy about the amount of the service charge.  It is relevant to note here that it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to make a finding on the level or fairness of the service charges paid by the resident. Such a decision would be within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Ombudsman can however consider whether the landlord has responded to the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges, in an appropriate and reasonable way.
  8. In his online complaint to the Ombudsman dated 19 August 2020, the resident said that the landlord’s failure to address his request made under section 21 of the Act is a breach by the landlord of a statutory obligation and a “criminal offence”. It is also relevant to note that it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make any findings on alleged breaches of the law or criminal matters or consider if the landlord’s response satisfies the relevant part of the Act; it is more appropriate for the courts to decide such matters. However, as mentioned above, this Service can consider whether the landlord has responded to the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges, in an appropriate and reasonable way.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 September 2019 explaining that there would be a delay in providing information relating to 2018-19 service charge costs, and that these would be provided as soon as possible.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to request a written summary of costs incurred in respect to the service charge (in accordance with section 21 of the Act) on 28 October 2019. The landlord acknowledged the request on 29 October and said it had been passed to the relevant team.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 November 2019 for assistance as he had not received a response from the landlord.
  4. At a residents’ meeting on 27 November 2019, attended by the resident, the landlord acknowledged again that there was a delay in obtaining cost information from the managing agent.
  5. Following the Ombudsman’s involvement, on 5 December 2019 the landlord acknowledged the delay in its provision of the requested information and promised to send this to the resident via a USB (password to be sent separately) within 10 working days. It also advised the Ombudsman that it had raised a stage one complaint.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2019:
    1. It apologised that the information requested had not yet been provided but would be as soon as possible, explaining that it was awaiting information from the managing agent before it could check and provide 2018-19 actual service charge information, including costs.
    2. It referred to a meeting held previously in which the resident’s enquiries were discussed.
    3. It said it would meet with the managing agent in January 2020 and would contact the resident after this meeting to explain when he could expect to receive the information requested.
    4. It explained steps it intended to take to improve the situation and prevent such delays in future.
  7. The landlord wrote to a local councillor on 7 February 2020 in response to an enquiry the councillor had received from the resident regarding the service charge cost information. The landlord said it had now received the information and would provide it to the resident within the next ten working days.
  8. Following further contact from the resident and the Ombudsman in early March 2020, the landlord emailed the resident on 6 March apologising for the delay and advising that it now had the relevant information. The landlord sent this information by recorded delivery on 12 March. The delivery was received by an on-site concierge on 17 March. The landlord confirmed that it had contacted the managing agent asking it to investigate/trace the letter. It also informed the resident at this time that he could not collect the information from its offices due to Covid-19 lockdown but said it would re-send the information if the letter were lost but advised it could not give a definite timescale for this.
  9. On 26 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord acknowledging receipt of its letter informing him about his outstanding rent and service charges (£2,424.10) and complained that he had still not received the answer to his leaseholder request after its letter sent to him in March 2020 had gone missing. The resident said this had prevented him investigating the service charges, so he had suspended his rent and service charge payments.
  10. On 28 May 2020, the resident re-sent his request for a written summary of relevant costs under section 21 of the Act to the landlord, who replied on 29 May 2020 advising this information had already been sent to him by recorded delivery on 12 March 2020. It repeated that it could not give a definite timescale of when a new one would be sent to him and also advised the resident that it could not provide this information in another format (by email as sought).
  11. On 29 May 2020, the resident complained by email setting out the issues with the way the landlord had handled his request and the problems experienced with receiving the information.
  12. The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 2 June 2020 and 3 June 2020 stating he was unhappy about it failing to re-send the information by recorded delivery and not allowing him to collect it from its offices (also that it was not sent to him in a digital format as originally requested). The resident then sent another email titled ‘formal complaint’ on 4 June 2020 about the member of staff’s handling of his request and “victimisation” after his harassment complaint.
  13. On 18 June 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s request by 25 June 2020.
  14. On 19 June 2020, the landlord emailed its ‘final response’ to the resident’s complaint responding to the issues raised in his 29 May 2020 complaint letter. Within this response, the landlord apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced in receiving the requested information and said this was due to its service charge team having been “hugely” affected by staff turnover. It also said that whilst it could not comment on the failed recorded delivery, it was keen to resolve this issue and advised it will therefore send the information out to him again on a USB stick within 10 working days.
  15. Within the evidence submitted to this Service from the landlord, there is a further (cover) letter to the resident dated 19 June 2020 (this is identical to the landlord’s letter to the resident dated 12 March 2020) suggesting it sent the USB drive to the resident (via USB drive) again at this time. However, on 7 July 2020, the resident sent an email to landlord titled ‘Final warning letter before court action’ chasing it for a response to his leaseholder request, first raised on 28 October 2019. This indicates the resident had not, at this time, received the USB stick as promised in its 30 June 2020 response. There is no evidence however that the resident pursued formal court action.
  16. On 8 July 2020, the landlord sent an email to the resident which included a link to ‘share point’ for the resident to access and inspect copy invoices. It is acknowledged this enabled the resident to view the information provided by the landlord.
  17. On 9 July 2020, the landlord responded to resident’s MP stating it had responded to the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2020 and sent out the invoices in relation to the year-end accounts for 2018/2019.
  18. On 12 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising that he did not request copies of invoices and supporting documents (under section 22 of the Act) but ‘a written summary of relevant costs’ under section 21 of the Act. He said this requires the landlord to show, amongst other things: items/costs for which the landlord did not receive a demand for payment during the accounting period; items/costs for which payments has been demanded by the landlord but not paid in the accounting period; items for which a demand was received and paid during the accounting period and; whether any of the costs related to works for which an improvement grant had been or was to be paid.  The resident also asked for explanations as to what type of services were covered by his service charge payment charge and how his share of the service charge payment was calculated, i.e., was it based on the area of the property or the number of bedrooms. 
  19. On 17 July 2020, the landlord stated in an email to the resident that it would be in a position to respond by 24 July 2020.
  20. On 21 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s previous communication explaining it was the intermediate landlord and not the superior landlord and said that it did not have control of the necessary information to reply to a section 21 or 22 request. It said that section 23 of the Act allows the intermediate landlord to pass the request to the superior landlord. It stated it had done what it could to help him but that it did not set the service charge and any request under section 21 or 22 should be sent to the superior landlord and their managing agents in line with section 23. It provided the details of the (building) managing agents.
  21. On 19 August 2020, the resident submitted an online complaint to this Service regarding the landlord’s failure to properly respond to his request for a written summary of costs incurred in relation to service fee under section 21 of the Act. He said that he pays the landlord £200 per month in service fees for a one-bedroom flat and it had refused to provide this information which has prevented him from investigating if his service charges were fair. The resident also stated that the landlord intentionally delayed with responding and its failure to address his request was a breach of a statutory obligation and also a criminal offence.
  22. On 3 September 2020, the Service confirmed to the resident that his complaint would be investigated.

Assessment and findings

Request for a summary of service charges

  1. There was a significant delay by the landlord in responding to the resident’s request for a written summary of costs incurred in relation to service fee, between when the resident first asked for this information on 28 October 2019, and when the information was sent to the resident via a USB stick on 12 March 2020. In its 5 December 2019 and 6 March 2020 responses to the resident, the landlord apologised for the delay and explained this was in part due to staff shortages and because it had been awaiting receipt of actual invoices from the management company for expenditure associated with the 2018/2019 service charges. However, the Ombudsman is mindful that this period far exceeds the timescales given in its Complaint process of three and then 15 working days for it to respond to concerns raised by residents. Moreover, it is noted that in its 5 December 2019 response, as well as acknowledging that the summary should have been provided to the resident within one month in accordance with the timeframe given in the Act, it then agreed to provide this summary within the next 10 working days.
  2. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to supply a response for more than four months, until 12 March 2020, is evidence of the landlord failing to do what it had agreed to do in its communication to the resident and failing to respond within the timescales stated in its policy.
  3. It is clear from the evidence that the resident did not receive the landlord’s letter and USB stick when it was sent recorded delivery on 12 March 2020 due to it getting lost after it arrived at the resident’s building (and signed for by the managing agent’s concierge service). This was not due to any fault on the landlord’s part, however, once made aware of this situation by the resident on 18 March 2020, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to ask the managing agent to investigate/try to trace the letter and also to re-send the information if it was found to be lost. In its 19 March 2020 email to the resident, the landlord had agreed to do this although stated it was unable to give a timescale.
  4. It is noted that there is no evidence of the landlord providing any updates to the resident after 19 March 2020. The resident re-sent the section 21 request to the landlord on 28 May 2020 and complained in his 29 May 2020 email about its handling of his request. In response, the landlord repeated that it would enquire with the managing agent regarding locating the letter and again said it could not give a definite timescale. This Service acknowledges that the delay with establishing if the letter had been lost/re-sending it to the resident happened during the (Covid-19) lockdown, however, the landlord’s guidance on this issue said that whilst most of its office-based staff were working from home and it is: “business as usual for us as much as possible”.  Therefore, whilst the pandemic may have caused some delays, this Service considers the lack of any timescale given in its responses and the lack of communication from the landlord after 19 March 2020 following the resident’s request to re-send the information, was unreasonable and compounded the issue.  The lack of any action taken by the landlord after 19 March 2020 to resolve the issue meant the resident was unable to investigate the service charges as sought and did not know when he would be able to do so. This in turn meant the resident had to spend further time contacting the landlord in pursuit of this information.  
  5. After further communications from the resident and contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord did then confirm in its letter to the resident dated 19 June 2020, that it would re-send the information he requested within the next 10 working days. As mentioned above, it is acknowledged that the landlord subsequently sent the resident a link to access the requested information in its email dated 8 July 2020 that enabled the resident to view the invoices.
  6. Therefore, due to unreasonable delays by the landlord in responding to both the resident’s initial (on 28 October 2019) and subsequent (18 March 2020) requests for it to provide a summary of costs, there was service failure by the landlord. This finding has taken into account that some delay was likely to have been caused by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  7. It is acknowledged that following his receipt of the information provided by the landlord, the resident complained that it did not constitute a summary of costs incurred in respect to the service charge within the meaning of section 21 of the Act. Further, that in a subsequent email dated 21 July 2020, the landlord advised that as the resident’s intermediate landlord, it did not have control of the necessary information to reply to a section 21 or section 22 request and that section 23 allows the intermediate landlord to pass up the request to the superior landlord. It is noted that the landlord did not offer to request this information from the superior landlord on the resident’s behalf.
  8. As explained above, the Ombudsman are unable to consider if there was any breach by the landlord of its obligations under the Act or consider if the content it provided satisfied the requirement under section 21 of the Act, as this is outside the scope of this investigation.   However, this Service can consider if the landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable.
  9. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident was aware that the landlord had encountered delays in receipt of cost information from its managing agent. This was addressed during a meeting on 27 November 2019, a month after the resident’s request for the information. Further, it is considered reasonable to expect the landlord to liaise with the superior landlord if this was required in order to supply the resident with the information sought.
  10. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of incorrect information having been provided, was unreasonable.
  11. It is also acknowledged that the resident had asked from the outset that the landlord respond to his request in writing by email and it is clear from his communications with the landlord that he was unhappy about it sending the information via USB stick. The landlord had told the resident that it was due to the amount of supporting documentation that it could not send the information electronically. The landlord later provided the information to the resident electronically on 8 July 2020 after adopting use of Microsoft SharePoint, which was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint’s handling

  1. Whilst it is noted that the landlord’s complaints process does not cover complaints about the level of service charges or its reasonableness, as mentioned above, it is evident that the complaint primarily concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for 2018/2019. This is not excluded from the landlord’s complaints process; therefore, we would expect the landlord to have followed its process in this case. 
  2. It is also evident that the landlord did not deal with the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. It delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s stage one complaint. Its policy at the time required it to respond within 10 working days of receiving a complaint. In this complaint, it responded 52 days (38 working days) after receipt, and then only after the matter was referred to it by the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident continued to express dissatisfaction that the request service charge information had not been provided, but despite this the landlord missed these further opportunities to investigate and resolve the outstanding complaint. It received a further email from the resident dated 9 March 2020 (titled ‘formal complaint’) and his 18 March 2020 complaint about not having received the letter or USB drive containing the information but did not consider the matter was a continuation of the resident’s previous stage one complaint. It was only after the resident sent further complaint emails between 26 May 2019 and 4 June 2020 and following contact from this Service on 18 June 2020, that the landlord issued its ‘final response’ to the concerns raised by the resident, on 19 June 2020.
  4. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints procedure changed during the period under investigation from a two-stage procedure to a one-stage procedure in February 2020. Despite this, it would have been reasonable to either: reconsider the resident’s continued dissatisfaction as a formal complaint, given that it had failed to successfully resolve the complaint at stage one of its previous procedure, or advise the resident that it would not consider the matter any further under its complaints procedure and to contact a Designated Person or the Ombudsman.
  5. The Ombudsman’s view is a complaints procedure with only one stage poses several risks and is not in keeping with our dispute resolution principles, which are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Only allowing one response to a complaint will be unfair if this does not allow sufficient opportunity for complainants to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the complainant. Having a further stage allows for a review at a more senior level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint, and may ensure full consideration of both sides of a complaint. Such senior reviews also provide an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns, ‘nip issues in the bud’ and to learn from outcomes. It should be noted that the landlord has since amended its complaints procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
  6. It is clear from the resident’s communications with the landlord that he was unhappy about the landlord telephoning him when he had asked for communications to be in writing only and said that he felt “harassed” by this. In its 19 June 2020 complaint response, the landlord said it was sorry and that going forward it would endeavour to contact him via email only. The evidence suggests that the phone call (on or around 9 March 2020) was made in error and not intended to cause distress to the resident. There is no evidence to show that the landlord made any further calls to the resident. Nonetheless, it is accepted that the landlord’s failure to follow the resident’s request in this regard, amounts to a service shortfall, albeit we consider it was a minor one.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for the period 2018 to 2019.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not act appropriately in responding to the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for the period 2018 to 2019 because it unreasonably delayed with providing a response. Whilst the (Covid-19) lockdown was a factor in the landlord’s delay (from March 2020 onwards), there was insufficient communication from the landlord during this period which compounded the delays. The landlord then failed to reasonably respond to the resident’s report that it had provided incorrect information.
  2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint raised in accordance with the timescales given in its Complaints process or within timeframes indicated in its communications to the resident.  As above, some delay can be attributed to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic but there were significant delays prior to this. Such delays in addition to other errors by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s complaint, caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £150 in total compensation for service failures identified with:
    1. its handling of the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for the period 2018 to 2019 (£100) and
    2. its complaints handling (£50).
  2. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 4 February 2021.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for a summary of the costs incurred in relation to the service charges for the period 2018 to 2019, passing it onto the superior landlord to provide the resident with this information if needed.